Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128235)	4/2/2004 6:32:39 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "That's just BS. It may HAVE BEEN one of the most secular governments, but it was apparent that Saddam grip on power was being usurped by the Islamists (Salafist and Shiite)within the country." So which is it? Was Saddam's dynasty going to last forever unless we invaded or was he on the way out? Here, let me quote your version of reality from last year: Hawkmoon, August 7, 2002 As is the likelihood that Saddam, and eventually his sons, will use such an opportunity to encourage attacks against the US by extremist groups. This is a family dynasty we're talking about here. When he dies, his kids will carry on the "family business". #reply-17850232 -- Carl P.S. Like I've said before, the reason you could tell that the Communists were divorced from reality is that their stories kept changing. As events unfolded, they kept having to come up with new versions of why it is that the "Socialist Paradise" had to be postponed into the future. Now the neocons are doing the same thing. Always they are postponing into the more and more indefinite future the pacification of Iraq, while their mutually contradictory excuses for the adventure multiply.